The nuclear nonanswer

Abstract

When discussing concern over environmental exploitation and
destruction, often particularly regarding global warming, the question
often arises: what about nuclear? But what is the question for which
nuclear energy is the answer? To slow global warming, the correct
question is: how do we go about reducing the amount of carbon we
emit?[1] But that's entirely unrelated to the question that nuclear
energy answers, which is: how do we generate more electricity?

Nuclear energy is pursued in the interests of—and based on an
assumption of—economic growth. Without the growth assumption, it is not
necessary. With the growth assumption in place, it is not
sufficient.

The 2 May New York Timeseditorial
"The right lessons from Chernobyl" states the
Times's institutional answer to a question that the
Times's opinion and news pages have been probing
lately: What about the future of nuclear reactors? The newspaper plainly
wants—in fact, urges—citizens and policymakers to see them as "a vital
source of clean energy in a warming world."

…

Meanwhile an elaborately crafted 13-minute video
appears on the Times's website, complemented by an
online article.

This video prompted a question from another person who, in an
act of resistance against the Keystone XL pipeline, was arrested at the Tar
Sands Action in 2011: “[w]here do you stand on this
issue?” In that video, we see Shellenberger (again) making the
argument about nuclear power and global warming: “Well if we don't
have nuclear, it's going to be a much hotter planet.” This is
ludicrous on its face, as it is certainly not the lack
of nuclear reactors that is causing global warming. But the narrator of the
video also highlights our “constantly growing energy needs”; in
fact, we see
devotion to growth everywhere in the dominant rhetoric. Why are
these “energy needs” constantly growing? And are they really
needs? Our society assumes that continued growth is possible and necessary,
which are gravely perilous assumptions.[2]

One global warming analyst and prophet, Gavain U'Prichard, summarized
a critically important element of our predicament when he said that
“we know from detailed examinations of IPCC data that the U.S. must
start reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6-8% per year, not 18% by 2020.
This information is suppressed by media, government, and scientists
themselves, because it is not reconcilable with economic policies that
forbid the rate of economic growth dropping below a certain level.”
We can talk as much as we like about the palette of options with which we
might want to mix a balm for global warming, but until we start dealing with
the economy, and growth in particular, a crushing juggernaut will (continue
to) rend all of our efforts to unrecognizable detritus.

We should look at the nuclear option in this light. Set aside (for a
moment) the rightful concerns about reactor safety, about the many costs and
limits of mining fuel and other construction materials, about there existing
absolutely no plan whatsoever for waste disposal. (Ahem.) Now, how does this
look economically? Well, we've had nuclear energy for a while now, and what
has it done to our consumption of fossilized carbon? Not a thing. Nor will
it, as long as the growth imperative remains firmly installed. What reason
would our economy have for rejecting one form of energy in favor of another?
If growth is your most sacred tenet, then you will turn to every energy
source and every resource available. A growth-oriented system will consume
all the inputs it can find, so nuclear just becomes one of “all
of the above”. Growth says: "Nuclear or carbon energy? Why not both!"
The same argument, of course, applies equally to any other source of energy
or raw material you care to name. History shows that the exponential growth
economy happily devours nuclear as well as fossilized carbon energy (and
every other source: with dams, windmills, photovoltaics, and that radical
photoreceptor: plants) and inexorably demands more. How will this have any
effect on carbon emissions, again?

Nuclear energy certainly has its own specific bag of significant
problems. Let's not forget that massive amounts of energy are used and
carbon emitted in the construction of power plants and in the mining of the
fuels. In addition, the industrial practices used to obtain all the
resources for building and fueling these reactors (and many other projects,
to be sure) generally have the effect of displacing indigenous peoples;
destroying economies and local environments; and empowering corrupt regimes
to dominate their polities through violence and injustice. Finally, society
has no tenable plan for how to handle nuclear waste. “The
United States, as yet, has no disposal facilities for high-level nuclear
waste which meet these standards. Instead, waste is stored on an ad-hoc
basis.” How insane is this?

If we continue to consider policies without looking at the economic
heart of our society, every economist (armchair or otherwise) in the
universe will scream at us (as they have been) about hurting growth (or its
proxy: job creation). And they will be correct (technically, if not
morally)! We need to address the economics, and to propose a different way.
We must abandon a growth-based economy. A carbon tax would certainly help
facilitate this, which implies that for as long as the dominant culture
remains shackled to growth, it will never allow a potent carbon tax to
exist, as it would be an existential threat. “This information is
suppressed by media, government, and scientists themselves.” We must
understand how society is structured to make this so, and we have to
confront it directly.

We are in dire need of a unified message about economics, and in
particular an answer to the grave environmental and social consequences of
exponential growth. It's very important to note that very little of the
above discussion is particular to nuclear energy as a technology; much of
the same critique could apply just as well to other energy sources. You may
rightfully want to dig deeper to understand how we've become enslaved to
growth, and I want to have that conversation with you, too. But we must
still acknowledge our growth-based society for what it is: awesomely
powerful (and, as we know, destructive), and awesomely adversarial to any
efforts that would hinder it. Nuclear energy represents a continuation of
the same industrial and growth-oriented belief that has suffused our society
for centuries. It is with the greatest pride that the dominant culture works
feverishly to solve its problems on its own, through its own ingenuity,
severed from the realities and gifts of creation.